Wednesday, November 11, 2009

Guns in Bars in Colorado

A 63-year-old Vietnam War veteran in Vail, Colo., shot four people at a local bar, killing one, police allege.

The Denver Post said Monday that Richard "Rossi" Moreau is accused of fatally shooting Gary Bruce Kitching, 70, last weekend and injuring three others during a shooting at the Sandbar Sports Grill in Vail.

Witness Chester Noel alleges Moreau drew a gun and began firing Saturday night when bar manager Jason Barber attempted to remove him from the bar.

"The bouncer said, 'Put the gun away,' then I saw flame shooting out in front of my face," alleges Noel, who said Barber, 29, was among those injured in the incident.

Police have not released the identities of those hurt in Saturday's shooting. Two of the gunshot victims, identified only as a 29-year-old and a 63-year-old, were still hospitalized as of Monday.

Vail Police Chief Dwight Henninger told the Post that Moreau had previously faced weapon charges and an unspecified number of weapons were found in his apartment following the shooting.

Wait, don't say it, I know the answer. He was already a criminal and no law could have prevented this. That's the pro-gun argument, isn't it?

What I say is it's too easy for guys like Mr. Moreau to get guns. Posting a sign at the bar entrance forbidding firearms or passing a state law banning guns in bars is not enough. The source of his guns needs to be dealt with. That's where gun control laws can and should make a difference.

Not sure where Kaveman is, but this are does not require thumbprints. It could be a state law...however I could also find no record of Laci's claim either.

But anyway, let's say we DO need to have better control over the source? I have yet to see an idea that would actually work, I simply see theoretical flailing about wanting to try things that would have no impact besides making life annoying for people who obey laws, sort of like having to sign 3 forms and scan my driver's license to buy some Sudafed...or the little old grandma in Indiana who's getting prosecuted for (GASP) buying two packs of Sudafed in a week.

"kaveman, Are those two thumbprint required every time? I'm surprised I haven't heard a lot of complaining about that. Can you explain?"

Yes, left and right hand thumbprints are taken every time you make a firearm purchase from any dealer in the U.S. These are attached to federal form 4473 and kept by the dealer for, I believe it's 20 years or until the dealer discontinues selling firearms; retires, closes, whatnot.

Note that this is done for the transaction and not necessarily the gun(s) themselves.

Example is that I can buy multiple guns in a single transaction and therefore submit one set of thumbprints for the sale, not one set of prints for each gun.

I'm a bit surprised you didn't know this already since form 4473 and the thumbprints are the direct result of the Brady Bill signed into law by Clinton.

The NICS(National Instant Check System) replaced the once mandated waiting period because disqualifying records were computerized and an "instant" check was then possible. Usually takes less than 5 minutes from the time the dealer dials the number to the time I'm walking away with my new gun. Every sale must be approved by the FBI.

Laci: "A while back, you had to submit to fingerprints and a waiting period to buy a handgun. Now, it's an instant check system"

Laci has just decribed the ideal situation for the evaluation of a waiting period.

For years there was a national waiting period, but then it sunsetted -- no more national waiting period. If a national waiting period had significant benefit, then there should have been some significant detriment following its elimination.

Yet when advocating a return to a national waiting period, I have not seen gun control advocates point to some significant detriment that actually occurred following its elimination. Strange -- why is that?

Mike W., That old argument that criminals won't obey the laws doesn't work. Proper laws would disarm many of these guys by making it extremely difficult for them to get guns. Those proper laws would include background checks on all transactions, of course. That way, after the gun is removed from the licensed gun dealer by one or two transfers, the new owner would still have to exercise proper caution when selling or trading it away.

Mikeb: "Proper laws would disarm many of these guys by making it extremely difficult for them to get guns."

That's the way it's supposed to work in theory -- but I have doubts as to how it works in practice. The demand by criminals in the US for guns is HUGE. And yes, the product is there -- so in the face of such huge demand, I suspect that the ingenuity of the black market will find ways to overcome gun control attempts in order to meet that demand.

I have not heard of many places that had many criminals with guns, which then passed gun control laws and subsequently saw significatly LESS criminals with guns as a result.

I have seen many news articles from Britain -- maybe by way of gunowner advocates, but from the British press. Some of them are similar to stories one sees in the US: Interviews with criminals (both in and out of jail) in which they claim great ease in obtaining a gun IF they desire one. I DON'T recall seeing stories in which criminals say that they want to carry or use a gun but darn, they just couldn't seem to find one.

But yes, far less criminals carry or use guns in Britain than in the US -- why? For a variety of reasons, criminals there do not seem to WANT to carry or use guns as much as in the US. As that changes, Britain's gun problem worsens.

I think that I have seen New Hampshire as an example in the US of some place with minimal gun control laws but also relatively low gun crime. Attributing that just to population density or such is probably an oversimplification -- the fact seems to be that perhaps for cultural reasons NH has far less criminals using guns than other places.

From a Local, New Hampshire, Maine, and Vermont have VERY minimal gun laws (Vermont is essentially Federal law, hunting laws, and a few commons sense laws like operating a firearm while intoxicated...I consider Vermont the MOST gun-friendly state in the Union. It certainly makes Texas look oppressive) and they have very low violent crime.

Vermont has no restrictions on carry or conceal carry. If you can own your gun you can carry it however and almost wherever you want.

New Hampshire just requires $10 and a background check for a conceal carry permit. Open carry 100% legal with no permit (tho Open carry in a car is considered "concealed" dumb law!) Maine Open Carry is 100% legal no permit needed, conceal carry is $60 plus training an check.

All of New England has great carry laws. No restrictions on alcohol being served (you can even drink if you don't get drunk) no restrictions on sports events, public events, voting places ect ect.

No restrictions on guns you can buy. NFA OK, No handgun rosters or weapons bans, magazine bans.

Minimal crime.

Massachusetts I'm requried to have a $100 permit and training just to OWN a gun. I need to present the permit every time I buy a gun or ammo, or components. Permits can be denied for any reason. I have to scan my right index finger when I buy a gun. (The system usually fails), and we can't buy non-approved handguns, nor standard-capacity magazines, nor guns labeled as "Assault Weapons". All guns must be registered with the state. Also we're limited to 4 private sales per calender year, and the transaction must be reported to the state.

yet we have more violent crime than Vermont, New Hampshire, and Maine COMBINED...also the guns that are confiscated from the criminals trace back to Mass, not neighboring states.

Hell a lot of the crime in Vermont and New Hampshire traces back to Massachusetts criminals!

But of course the gun-banners won't want to talk about this subject....or will MikeB surprise me?

Weer'd, You can't compare Vermont to Mass. Vermont doesn't have anything to compare with Boston. This goes back to the old thing which we've all agreed on, that the gun availability is not the only factor.

If Vermont had a city exactly like Boston, it would be much more violent with guns than the Boston we know. Only if every single other thing were identical could you made such a comparison. But they're not, so you're comparing apples and oranges, like you pro-gun guys so often do.